Last QA: Inventions and inventors are solely driven by passion and not by thinking 'I can patent this' and become a millionaire. This is where the systematic greed takes over and halting the process of the evolution in society. We have seen this happening over and over.
we dont have a free market. we live in a world of monopolies. the governments support monopolies with billions of pounds more than an unconditional basic income would cost. we have free rule of profit which destroys our planet, but what we need is free market of ideas to save our planet. to have this true freedom, we need to free people from the hamster wheel of being slaves to the accumulation of some peoples profits and monopolies. part of how to do that is unconditional basic income.
We got some stuff from Ricardo, like the law of comparative advantage. What’s gone missing? There were three groups in the capitalist system in Ricardo’s world (and there still are). Workers / Employees Capitalists / Employers Rentiers / Landowners / Landlords / other skimmers, who are just skimming out of the system, not contributing to its success The unproductive group exists at the top of society, not the bottom. Later on we did bolt on a benefit system to help others that were struggling lower down the scale. Identifying the unproductive group at the top of society didn’t go down too well. They needed a new economics to hide the discoveries of the classical economists, neoclassical economics. We knew how free trade worked in the 19th century, before neoclassical economics. How did the UK prepare to compete in a free trade world in the 19th century? They had an Empire to get in cheap raw materials; there were no regulations and no taxes on employees. It was all about the cost of living, and they needed to get that down so they could pay internationally competitive wages. UK labour would cost the same as labour anywhere else in the world. Disposable income = wages - (taxes + the cost of living) Employees get their money from wages and the employers pay the cost of living through wages, reducing profit.
Ricardo supported the Repeal of the Corn Laws to get the price of bread down. They housed workers in slums to get housing costs down. Employers could then pay internationally competitive wages and were ready to compete in a free trade world. That's the idea. You level the playing field first; then you engage in free trade. The interests of the capitalists and rentiers are opposed with free trade. This nearly split the Tory Party in the 19th century over the Repeal of the Corn Laws. The rentiers gains push up the cost of living. The landowners wanted to get a high price for their crops, so they could make more money. The capitalists want a low cost of living as they have to pay that in wages. The capitalists wanted cheap bread, as that was the staple food of the working class, and they would be paying for it through wages. Of course, that’s why it’s so expensive to get anything done in the West. It’s our high cost of living. Disposable income = wages - (taxes + the cost of living) Employees get their money from wages and the employers pay the cost of living through wages, reducing profit. Everyone pays their own way. Employees get their money from wages. The employer pays the way for all their employees in wages. Off-shore from the West ASAP to maximise profit.
Professor Standing has, it seems, studied Henry George at some point in his formal education (or, more likely, after he completed his formal education). I have posted comments to the video of a 2017 World Economic Forum panel discussion that included Professor Standing. My main observation, one that Professor Standing may have dealt with in his books and other writings, is the problem of the market capitalization of rents that are not directly taxed. Increase individual and household income without increasing the supply of affordable housing opportunities and the increase in disposable income will end up in the pockets of landlords. As land prices increase so will the cost of affordable housing offered for sale. He mentions his support for the taxation of land values. This is central to dealing with income and wealth concentration. Absent this reform in how public revenue is raised, communities must find the revenue from somewhere (e.g., from the taxation of unearned income derived from the sale of financial assets or land) to subsidize the construction of affordable housing.
Point is, you wouldn't need to construct affordable housing if there was a proper land tax. It drops the selling price of land to zero, precisely because it transfers incomes back to those that find housing unaffordable now. Also allows the market to rationalise existing stock. Sorted and sorted.
@@BenJamin-rt7ui You are correct, of course. While this should be a common understanding of how the public collection of land's rental value would makes its way through markets, it is not pushed very hard even by economists who specialize in writing about "housing" markets.
I swear I'm not being disrespectful-- this guy is a great scholar and activist who I admire very much-- but "Guy Standing" is a perfect name for an extra in a movie.
Why would we have to pay for something that is free? Free money costs nothing- only debt-money such as we use currently costs us something to use it, and then those who pay slowly transfer their wealth and power to those who control its supply. In 2008, QE was handed to banks to continue trading in a capitalist environment. That is an abuse of free money because it is NOT UNIVERSAL. If I received all my money freely whilst you continually pay, I am going to end up with the power and wealth, and you will have ever more debts to settle.
He's not advocating for income equality. Basic income means your human needs for food and shelter are covered, and you can work and earn money on top of that. But if you hit a rough patch in this increasingly precarious labor market, you won't be thrown into homelessness and starvation, that's all.
"You are a worker, and you will work for the greater good of the state. Work needs to be done, and workers like you need to do it. Basic Income is slavery, because freedom is slavery. Do not aspire to follow your dreams. Your cubicle awaits you, comrade!" _~ Bernie Sanders, 2019_
I have been listening to Guy Standing on Radio 4 today, and then on You Tube. Oh my, he really knows what he's talking about.
Last QA: Inventions and inventors are solely driven by passion and not by thinking 'I can patent this' and become a millionaire. This is where the systematic greed takes over and halting the process of the evolution in society. We have seen this happening over and over.
He really is standing
Points for honesty
we dont have a free market. we live in a world of monopolies. the governments support monopolies with billions of pounds more than an unconditional basic income would cost. we have free rule of profit which destroys our planet, but what we need is free market of ideas to save our planet. to have this true freedom, we need to free people from the hamster wheel of being slaves to the accumulation of some peoples profits and monopolies. part of how to do that is unconditional basic income.
We got some stuff from Ricardo, like the law of comparative advantage.
What’s gone missing?
There were three groups in the capitalist system in Ricardo’s world (and there still are).
Workers / Employees
Capitalists / Employers
Rentiers / Landowners / Landlords / other skimmers, who are just skimming out of the system, not contributing to its success
The unproductive group exists at the top of society, not the bottom.
Later on we did bolt on a benefit system to help others that were struggling lower down the scale.
Identifying the unproductive group at the top of society didn’t go down too well.
They needed a new economics to hide the discoveries of the classical economists, neoclassical economics.
We knew how free trade worked in the 19th century, before neoclassical economics.
How did the UK prepare to compete in a free trade world in the 19th century?
They had an Empire to get in cheap raw materials; there were no regulations and no taxes on employees.
It was all about the cost of living, and they needed to get that down so they could pay internationally competitive wages.
UK labour would cost the same as labour anywhere else in the world.
Disposable income = wages - (taxes + the cost of living)
Employees get their money from wages and the employers pay the cost of living through wages, reducing profit.
Ricardo supported the Repeal of the Corn Laws to get the price of bread down.
They housed workers in slums to get housing costs down.
Employers could then pay internationally competitive wages and were ready to compete in a free trade world.
That's the idea.
You level the playing field first; then you engage in free trade.
The interests of the capitalists and rentiers are opposed with free trade.
This nearly split the Tory Party in the 19th century over the Repeal of the Corn Laws.
The rentiers gains push up the cost of living.
The landowners wanted to get a high price for their crops, so they could make more money.
The capitalists want a low cost of living as they have to pay that in wages.
The capitalists wanted cheap bread, as that was the staple food of the working class, and they would be paying for it through wages.
Of course, that’s why it’s so expensive to get anything done in the West.
It’s our high cost of living.
Disposable income = wages - (taxes + the cost of living)
Employees get their money from wages and the employers pay the cost of living through wages, reducing profit.
Everyone pays their own way.
Employees get their money from wages.
The employer pays the way for all their employees in wages.
Off-shore from the West ASAP to maximise profit.
Professor Standing has, it seems, studied Henry George at some point in his formal education (or, more likely, after he completed his formal education). I have posted comments to the video of a 2017 World Economic Forum panel discussion that included Professor Standing.
My main observation, one that Professor Standing may have dealt with in his books and other writings, is the problem of the market capitalization of rents that are not directly taxed. Increase individual and household income without increasing the supply of affordable housing opportunities and the increase in disposable income will end up in the pockets of landlords. As land prices increase so will the cost of affordable housing offered for sale.
He mentions his support for the taxation of land values. This is central to dealing with income and wealth concentration. Absent this reform in how public revenue is raised, communities must find the revenue from somewhere (e.g., from the taxation of unearned income derived from the sale of financial assets or land) to subsidize the construction of affordable housing.
"may have dealt with" In other words you have not read any of his books and are just making assumptions.
@@Syklonus Yes. My comments are based on what he said in this address.
Point is, you wouldn't need to construct affordable housing if there was a proper land tax. It drops the selling price of land to zero, precisely because it transfers incomes back to those that find housing unaffordable now. Also allows the market to rationalise existing stock. Sorted and sorted.
@@BenJamin-rt7ui You are correct, of course. While this should be a common understanding of how the public collection of land's rental value would makes its way through markets, it is not pushed very hard even by economists who specialize in writing about "housing" markets.
First, I have to get over that name ... his parents must be having a laugh ... now to actually watch this video ...
Who's the Guy Standing over there?
@@taxmanfelix5189I like the sound of it. Rhymes with "Who is John Galt?"
When did this speech happen?
2nd February, 2018
I swear I'm not being disrespectful-- this guy is a great scholar and activist who I admire very much-- but "Guy Standing" is a perfect name for an extra in a movie.
My God this guy waffles on...
Why would we have to pay for something that is free? Free money costs nothing- only debt-money such as we use currently costs us something to use it, and then those who pay slowly transfer their wealth and power to those who control its supply.
In 2008, QE was handed to banks to continue trading in a capitalist environment. That is an abuse of free money because it is NOT UNIVERSAL. If I received all my money freely whilst you continually pay, I am going to end up with the power and wealth, and you will have ever more debts to settle.
WIPO - TRIPS
I can't wait for income equality. Many of the people calling for it are going to end up worse off.
I like your concise and clear explanation of how that would be. Or maybe you're just talking horse shit.
He's not advocating for income equality. Basic income means your human needs for food and shelter are covered, and you can work and earn money on top of that. But if you hit a rough patch in this increasingly precarious labor market, you won't be thrown into homelessness and starvation, that's all.
"You are a worker, and you will work for the greater good of the state. Work needs to be done, and workers like you need to do it. Basic Income is slavery, because freedom is slavery. Do not aspire to follow your dreams. Your cubicle awaits you, comrade!"
_~ Bernie Sanders, 2019_
Interesting, just out of interest, where this quote came from?
great stuff mate?!